In four experiments we examined the effect of varying the types of display coding (analog, verbal, digital) used in a visual monitoring task. In pure display conditions all indicators within a display were of the same type, and in mixed conditions display type varied across indicators. Subjects performed either integration tasks, which required responses based on information contained in two indicators, or nonintegration tasks, in which responses could be made based on a single indicator value. Results replicated previous findings of the superiority of analog indicators in tasks of this type and also indicated that the integration/nonintegration task distinction is not an important variable to take into account when designing displays. It is suggested that detailed analyses of decision task demands are required in designing visual displays.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allport, D. A., Antonis, B., and Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 225–235.
2.
Barnett, B., and Wickens, C. D. (1988). Display proximity in multicue information integration: The benefits of boxes. Human Factors, 29, 170–195.
3.
Boles, D. B., and Wickens, C. D. (1987). Display formatting in information integration and nonintegration tasks. Human Factors, 29, 395–406.
4.
Carswell, C. M., and Wickens, C. D. (1987). Information integration and the object display: An interaction of task demands and display superiority. Ergonomics, 30, 511–528.
5.
Fisher, D. F., Lefton, L. A., and Moss, J. (1978). Reading geometrically transformed text: A developmental approach. Bulletin of the Psychonomics Society, 11, 157–160.
6.
Fracker, M. L. and Wickens, C. D. (1989). Resources, confusions, and compatibility in dual-axis tracking: Displays, controls, and dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 80–96.
7.
Friedman, A., and Polson, M. C. (1981). The hemispheres as independent resource systems: Limited capacity processing and cerebral specialization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1031–1058.
8.
Friedman, A., Polson, M. C., Dafoe, C. G., and Gaskill, S. J. (1982). Dividing attention within and between hemispheres: Testing a multiple resources approach to limited capacity information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 625–650.
9.
Gopher, D., Brickner, M., and Navon, D. (1982). Different difficulty manipulations interact differently with task emphasis: Evidence for multiple resources. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 146–157.
10.
Grether, W. F., and Baker, C. A. (1972). Visual presentation of information. In H. A. Van Cott and R. G. Kincade (Eds.), Human engineering guide to equipment design (rev. ed., pp. 51–122). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11.
Hanson, R. H., Payne, D. G., Shively, R. J., and Kantowitz, B. H. (1981). Process control simulation research in monitoring analog and digital displays. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting (pp. 154–158). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
12.
Inhoff, A. W., Pollatsek, A., Posner, M. I., and Rayner, K. (1989). Covert attention and eye movement during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 63–89.
13.
Kolers, P. A. (1975a). Memorial consequences of automatized encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1, 689–701.
14.
Kolers, P. A. (1975b). Specificity of operations in sentence recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 289–306.
15.
Kolers, P. A. (1976). Reading a year later. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 554–565.
16.
Koonce, J. M., Gold, M., and Moroze, M. (1986). Comparison of novice and experienced pilots using analog and digital flight displays. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 57, 1181–1184.
17.
Kowler, E., and Anton, S. (1987). Reading twisted text: Implications for the role of saccades. Vision Research, 27, 45–60.
18.
Pachella, R. G. (1974). The interpretation of reaction time in information-processing research. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.), Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition (pp. 41–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
Payne, D. G., and Gunther, V. A. L. (1988). Processing deficits in monitoring analog and digital displays: Implications for attentional theory and mental-state estimation research. In Proceedings of the Mental-State Estimation Conference-1987 (NASA Conference Publication 2504). Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
20.
Payne, D. G., Peters, L. J., Birkmire, D. P., Bonto, M. A., Anastasi, J. S. and Wenger, M. J. (1994). Effects of speech intelligibility level on concurrent visual task performance. Human Factors, 36, 441–475.
21.
Tullis, T. S. (1980). Human performance evaluation of graphic and textual CRT displays of diagnostic data. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 24th Annual Meeting (pp. 310–311). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
22.
Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 233–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman and R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). New York: Academic.
24.
Wickens, C. D. (1987). Attention. In P. Hancock (Ed.), Human factors in psychology (pp. 29–80). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
25.
Wickens, C. D., and Andre, A. D. (1990). Proximity compatibility and information display: Effects of color, space, and objectness on information integration. Human Factors, 32, 61–77.
26.
Wickens, C. D., and Sandry, D. (1982). Task-hemispheric integrity in dual task performance. Acta Psychologica, 52, 227–247.
